It's been a while since I have posted, but what I read in today's FT (Financial Times) has put me in an alarmed state...

It seems that our North Korean friends have been using political prisoners to test chem/bio weapon's effects on humans of various ages. The BBC reported this story on Sunday's TV news program Access to Evil and after the Hutton debacle I am assuming that the BBC isn’t “kidding” on this one… if they want to retain their television charter with the gov’t that is.

The report sourced information from witnesses inside prison camps. One witnesses story I found profoundly moving, he said, “I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save [their] kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing” (FT, 2/2/04).

This account is alarming at the very least, and justification for international intervention I would argue. How does everyone feel about this account and N. Korea overall? Is it plausible to ask our administration and the international community to put their differences aside and come together to take action to stop Kim Jong-il? Everyone knows he has WMD, chem./bio weapons, and human rights abuses have been overwhelmingly substantiated.

I know that the phraseology of “regime change” has been tainted by the Iraq war, but if ever there was a legitimate argument to be made for regime change, I think N. Korea is it. I also realize that mobilizing support for another conflict will be hard at best and absolutely required to legitimize any armed intervention against the sovereignty of yet another rouge nation in a pre-emptive nature. Is it right to attack N. Korea?

If the Iraq war has been any guideline, yes. Simply, if the administration wants to shy away from WMD claims in favor of the known human rights abuses committed by Saddam Hussein, then the administration must commit to a resolution over N. Korea. The same moral code should apply to the peninsula of Korea; they are people just as much as Iraqis are. The persecuted Korean people, however, have the apparent disadvantage of not being in the center of the Middle East, nor do they sit atop rivers of oil. Perhaps that is too cynical, but the facts remain, the only variables that separate an imprisoned Korean from an imprisoned Iraqi are geographic location and oil.

__________________
Jonathan
1998 S600
2001 E430
1994 E320
1991 560SEL
1994 Turbo R

This is simply my two cents.

N. Korea has no oil that interest our present Administrations. In addition, any U.S. military build-up in that region will be highly prohibited because of the close proximity to Chinese border and close range to the Russians. Both countries will not tolerate any massive U.S. military presence.

Our Administrations are very much favouring the current Chinese regime that Bush will do nothing to hamper that relationship. Especially in view of the economic event horizon of that massive consumer market. If we mass up, the EU will have the opportunity to dominate that market for the next 50 years (remember the best selling cars in China are VW and Audi, not GM). I don't think our business communities will allow our Government to screw it up.

As I said in other time in other post, the Chinese will put a lid on the N. Korean when crunch time comes. It will be our best interest to stay away from that Pennisular.

__________________
95 R129
04 Infiniti G35.5 BS
10 X204

Korea is a much more complicated situation. Consider that roughly 20 million people live within 20 miles of the border with North Korea (and the highest concentration of their weapons) in highly developed cities. Any kind of preemptive action here would certainly involve the deaths of millions. I'm with elau on this one, the Chinese are the ones with their hands on the leash and they have more reason to keep NK under control than we do. The unfortunate part is that they will likely tolerate anything so long as it stays in NK. The best way to bring down the North is through economic means, and I don't know if that means we wait for them to fold, or we build them up so the people have something worth resisting their government for. In any case the reunification of the North and South will be like nothing we have ever seen before. Total integration will liikely take over 50 years and make East/West German reunification look like a picnic.

__________________
Jason Priest
1999 E430
1995 E420 - retired
1986 420SEL - retired

N Korea lacks a compelling national interest to the USA.

No oil or other strategically important resources.

No immanent threat to US interests or allies.

In general, using the military for humanitarian reasons will be a non-starter. Look at recent precedent.

Went into Somalia, to what ultimate end? Ignoble retreat.

We didn't go into Rwanda. Ultimate end? half-million murdered civilians. World-wide commitment to sympathetic handwringing and a couple of show trials. Whoopee.

Went in and out of Liberia faster than a sailor on a saturday night whore. Result: nuttin much.

B

thanks Bot, that's what I figured. No oil and compelling interest...

Isn't their obvious WMD program compelling enough? Once they develop a delivery system, we might as well phone it in. Right?

__________________
Jonathan
1998 S600
2001 E430
1994 E320
1991 560SEL
1994 Turbo R

Swarz,

You're right, if one assumes that the goal of N Korea is development of ICBM with which to threaten the USA and/or our allies. If that is the case, then the earlier the USA nails'em the better.

But is the nuke a credible threat, given our capabilitites?

I think this is why the USA & Australia are pursuing the missle defense system so aggressively. Defense against an assault from the former USSR was not teneble (though made great political theatre for Reagan). However, defense against a single, small country will limited capabilities is reasonable. If they pursue an aggressive nuclear armament program to overwhelm defenses, well we can go that route. Recall what happened to the USSR when they tried that vs the west.

In short, it looks to me like the strategy is containment of N Korea (as has been the case since 1952).

If they had any significant influence on strategic resources, we would undoubtedly visit a hell upon them as he did upon Iraq.

The take-home message is that you can be a wacky dictator and oppress your people for generations--just don't screw with us or our friends, or our strategic resources.

I can live with that.

B